NYC Dept. of Education trying to ban 50 words from tests

[ChrisFL]

Seems like quite an overreaction!!

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03...from-standardized-tests/#.UfyQBwGgqFg.twitter





Here is the complete list of words that could be banned:

Abuse (physical, sexual, emotional, or psychological)

Alcohol (beer and liquor), tobacco, or drugs

Birthday celebrations (and birthdays)

Bodily functions

Cancer (and other diseases)

Catastrophes/disasters (tsunamis and hurricanes)

Celebrities

Children dealing with serious issues

Cigarettes (and other smoking paraphernalia)

Computers in the home (acceptable in a school or library setting)

Crime

Death and disease

Divorce

Evolution

Expensive gifts, vacations, and prizes

Gambling involving money

Halloween

Homelessness

Homes with swimming pools

Hunting

Junk food

In-depth discussions of sports that require prior knowledge

Loss of employment

Nuclear weapons

Occult topics (i.e. fortune-telling)

Parapsychology

Politics

Pornography

Poverty

Rap Music

Religion

Religious holidays and festivals (including but not limited to Christmas, Yom Kippur, and Ramadan)

Rock-and-Roll music

Running away

Sex

Slavery

Terrorism

Television and video games (excessive use)

Traumatic material (including material that may be particularly upsetting such as animal shelters)

Vermin (rats and roaches)

Violence

War and bloodshed

Weapons (guns, knives, etc.)

Witchcraft, sorcery, etc.


___________________________________________




I can understand a few of those, but some are just too pathetic to even mention.

 

[Robbi]

I thought education was about learning and not about censoring.

 

[sonnyjane]

Idiots. And if approved, this will create an entire generation of idiots in turn. Heaven forbid children know anything about politics, slavery, war, cancer, natural disasters, evolution, or sex.

 

[DVCLiz]

Idiots. And if approved, this will create an entire generation of idiots in turn. Heaven forbid children know anything about politics, slavery, war, cancer, natural disasters, evolution, or sex.

No one's saying these subjects won't be taught in school, just that the language used in questions on standardized tests should avoid these subjects.

In my opinion, about a dozen are silly over reactions or just over reaching the intent, the rest are common sense - I wouldn't want my kids taking standardized tests that mentioned most of these subjects. In testing there's no chance to actually teach any of the subjects, so kids would just be reading the material and having to respond independently. I'd rather have my children take a test with more neutral language that maximizes their chances to do well on the test.

 

[anelson81993]

Well, I think they've managed to cover just about anything anyone could possibly find offensive...

Seriously, though, how is this supposed to work? I mean, teachers can absolutely give standardized tests without mentioning rap music. But how are we supposed to assess students' knowledge of, say, history, without being able to include some of these (like war, politics, religion, slavery)? I don't need to discuss Halloween on the standardized tests I might give in an English class (in the relatively-near future when I graduate college and actually teach English), but it would be pretty hard to cover The Great Gatsby without being able to discuss crime, violence, and homes with swimming pools (like the one where **SPOILER ALERT** someone was found dead and it was significant). The Crucible is virtually untestable if the witchcraft element cannot be on the test at all (and I assume this would also fall under "occult topics"). Huckleberry Finn--might as well not even put that one on the standardized test either, because it falls under a variety of those "bad words."

Because we weren't already having enough problems with standardized testing and the American educational system, we also have to censor anything anyone might disagree with, even if it's part of a subject that might actually have a legitimate reason to test over the topic? I'm sure this will have fabulous effects on the already failing American educational system...

 

[Acklander]

Personally, I think they should ban standardized tests, not a few words. Really, really, tired of schools teaching to the test instead of teaching kids how to think.

 

[dAnconia]

Sure, let's create a generation that is even more overly sensitive and eager to be offended.

 

[aprilgail2]

Personally, I think they should ban standardized tests, not a few words. Really, really, tired of schools teaching to the test instead of teaching kids how to think.

Totally agree- I opted my daughter out of all state standardized testing this year as did many other parents.

 

[Aliceacc]

No one's saying these subjects won't be taught in school, just that the language used in questions on standardized tests should avoid these subjects.

In my opinion, about a dozen are silly over reactions or just over reaching the intent, the rest are common sense - I wouldn't want my kids taking standardized tests that mentioned most of these subjects. In testing there's no chance to actually teach any of the subjects, so kids would just be reading the material and having to respond independently. I'd rather have my children take a test with more neutral language that maximizes their chances to do well on the test.

I agree.

Seriously-- how many of those words are you likely to see on a standardized test?

Seriously, though, how is this supposed to work? I mean, teachers can absolutely give standardized tests without mentioning rap music. But how are we supposed to assess students' knowledge of, say, history, without being able to include some of these (like war, politics, religion, slavery)? I don't need to discuss Halloween on the standardized tests I might give in an English class (in the relatively-near future when I graduate college and actually teach English), but it would be pretty hard to cover The Great Gatsby without being able to discuss crime, violence, and homes with swimming pools (like the one where **SPOILER ALERT** someone was found dead and it was significant). The Crucible is virtually untestable if the witchcraft element cannot be on the test at all (and I assume this would also fall under "occult topics"). Huckleberry Finn--might as well not even put that one on the standardized test either, because it falls under a variety of those "bad words."

Because we weren't already having enough problems with standardized testing and the American educational system, we also have to censor anything anyone might disagree with, even if it's part of a subject that might actually have a legitimate reason to test over the topic? I'm sure this will have fabulous effects on the already failing American educational system...

You're not going to find The Great Gatsby or The Crucible or Huck Finn on any standardized test, since there is no one set of books that every high school student in the country is required to read.

Note that there's no prohibition against the kids using the words in their answers, merely a attempt to prohibit them from the questions. And, of course, this is about standardized testing and not classroom testing. So if a question were to ask about conflict, a student could certainly cite any of those sources at his or her own discretion.

We're not talking about classroom tests, but standardized tests. Standardized testing should contain neutral language. And, since so much is tied into standardized testing-- everything from funding to teacher evaluations-- it makes sense that the wording should be considered.

i do think, though, that the NYC DOE has much bigger fish to fry.

 

[luvestodizz]

Standardized testing is going to be the Goal of education under Common Core. Other states will be following this I am sure. Since so many in our country can't grasp the language or live a productive life, let's limit and dumb down everyone else.In NYC if they are trying to be culturally correct I guess they will be adding words/phrases:

Welfare check
Section 8
hoodie
Illegal gun
Dodging border agents
SRO
Fast food
Spanish words
Entitlement

Sorry to offend anyone but the changes offend me!

 

[Aliceacc]

Standardized testing is going to be the Goal of education under Common Core. Other states will be following this I am sure. Since so many in our country can't grasp the language or live a productive life, let's limit and dumb down everyone else.In NYC if they are trying to be culturally correct I guess they will be adding words/phrases:

Welfare check
Section 8
hoodie
Illegal gun
Dodging border agents
SRO
Fast food
Spanish words
Entitlement

Sorry to offend anyone but the changes offend me!

Whether or not you agree with Common Core, its goal is not testing. Testing is the way they choose to determine whether the kids have learned that Common Core body of knowledge. And I think most educators and parents and kids will agree that it's gotten out of hand.

Many states have adopted Common Core...45 states, DC, DoD and a number of territories. And I imagine you're right-- since testing is becoming more important, many more districts will want the tests to reflect their own demographic

As to the rest, I'm not sure exactly what your point is. OK, I get that you don't like NYC... great. And if you're trying to offend people, I think you've gotten off to a good start. But what the OP was discussing was an attempt by the NYC BoE to ensure that the standardized testing-- that determines funding, that determines which kids get academic intervention, that determines teacher evaluation-- is presented in neutral language. That's always been optimal for testing anyway. This isn't news. All that's newsworthy is that the Board of Ed is requesting that these words not be on the standardized tests that NYC kids take.

Is it an over reaction? Sure. Are some of those words way over the top in terms of over sensitivity? Sure. Is this the best use of taxpayer money? Probably not.

But does it "limit and dumb down" anyone? Not as far as I can see.

 

[DVCLiz]

A little research shows this was a news story from March/April 2012 and the idea has since been discarded.

I do wonder, though, for those who are offended by this list or this concept - if the tables were turned and the NYC standardized testing was required to use all of these subjects in their tests, how would you react? For every word on that list I would personally approve, there are three or four I would really be upset about. Birthdays? Fine. Sexual abuse, pornography, violence? No thanks.

 

[luvestodizz]

You really need to research Common Core and see how grading essays will change. Proper English, grmmar and spelling will no longer be important. I call that dumbing down. Common Core is a set of standards that will be taught to our kids so yes the testing is the end result. I don't have the time to quote info about Common Core but do some reading on it and you will see it's not good. I don't hate NYC, I do hate what they are doing. If our students can't be exposed to things they can't afford ir don't have, then no one should. I can't buy a Mercedes or read about people having one in school, will the next step will be to ban all luxury items?

 

[Minnesota!]

I thought education was about learning and not about censoring.

I agree. As I have stated previously - I cannot believe the idiots and wimps this world is allowing "us" to raise. Censorship should not be allowed.

 

[Aliceacc]

You really need to research Common Core and see how grading essays will change. Proper English, grmmar and spelling will no longer be important. I call that dumbing down. Common Core is a set of standards that will be taught to our kids so yes the testing is the end result. I don't have the time to quote info about Common Core but do some reading on it and you will see it's not good. I don't hate NYC, Forgive me for saying it doesn't exactly read like an "I love NY" ad. I do hate what they are doing.Who are "they"?? The things in your list of add ons are simply a slam on NYC and most large cities. They have nothing to do with education. If our students can't be exposed to things they can't afford ir don't have, then no one should. I can't buy a Mercedes or read about people having one in school, will the next step will be to ban all luxury items?

Actually, I'm fairly well versed on it.

The idea behind Common Core makes a lot of sense. In theory, any kid who transfers to my Algebra II class should have the same body of knowledge from Algebra I, regardless of whether he's from Brooklyn or Boston or Boise. Common Core is an attempt to define the body of knowledge that's essential for each course typically taught K-12.

The problem, of course, is that in a nation as diverse as ours, it's close to impossible to define. And even harder to evaluate.

I'm guessing from your post that you're an English teacher?? If so, then you know that standardized testing is only the tiniest little tip of the iceberg in terms of assessments our kids receive. And I don't know a single teacher of any subject who fails to teach and emphasize and count grammar and spelling and usage and punctuation. Those subjects, and more, are taught and tested and quizzed and evaluated on a constant basis. They certainly come into play on most Regents exams. Whether or not they're counted a particular standardized test doesn't imply anything about what happens day to day in the classroom. And I know that, since grammar and spelling are among the Common Core standards for NY, they're among the items tested on the "ELA" versions of the standardized tests that my own children take. To exactly which test are you referring when you say that spelling, grammar usage will not be important??

While it's not exactly a "standardized" test, remember that there is an essay portion on the SAT. And that spelling and grammar and punctuation and usage all come into play.

As an educator, you know that politicians have been trying to "fix" education since LBJ instituted Head Start. Ever read "A Nation at Risk"??? Let's talk NCLB. Politicians have been trying to "fix" education for decades and to use education to solve a wide variety of social issues. Common Core is simply the latest manifestation.

There's nothing inherently wrong with standardized testing. There's something very useful about knowing how much of the material you've mastered, and how you scored with relation to your peers. What's wrong with the latest standardized testing craze is the importance that is attached to it. When your district budget, when your child's academic intervention, when your teaching job for next year are all tied into the results of that test, then you had better believe that it's going to become larger than life. The problem is that, once people who are not in the classroom get involved, testing is no longer about evaluating what's been learned. It becomes about funding and jobs and social programs. It's about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

The list in the OP had NOTHING to do with "exposure." It had to do with using neutral words on a test. It wasn't about censorship, it was about words used on two or three of many, many assessments that each kid takes all year long. It's about making it possible for a kid to show exactly what he or she knows, without being upset by the contents of the test. So, yeah, maybe the word "terrorism" wouldn't be a big deal in a lot of parts of the county. But I know I'm still teaching kids who are absent every September 11, because they're at Ground Zero honoring a lost parent or aunt or uncle or grandfather. And I can only imagine the reaction of a 9 year old seeing that word on a timed test, knowing that an older brother he had never met had died at the hands of terrorists. Trust me, he doesn't need any additional "exposure" to terrorism.

 

[Caradana]

They're trying to level the cultural and socioeconomic playing field on the tests and the tests alone, not in the classrooms. Imagine being a shelter kid in Harlem and the reading comprehension sections are about hunting, backyard pools and NASCAR. Those three topics are totally outside the scope of your personal experience. What about the affluent kid in Biloxi, taking that same test - are you familiar with any of that?

Flip it. The essays mention celebrities, homelessness and vermin. I'm raising two little NYC kids to be here (I work literally in the center of Manhattan) and I see all three of these weekly if not daily. My girls will too. These topics are instantly relatable. Will the suburban kid from Oregon or Vermont feel that way? Or is it almost distracting to that kid, how weird the topics they're talking about are?

I'm personally fine with a list that in effect is saying, pick topics in the frame of a common American experience, so we test what we intend to test right then: comprehension of a written passage and its grammar, not previous familiarity and comfort with subject matter. To me, it's not a bad thing. Lastly, half the topics on thr list are common sense to exclude, and I'm not offended when someone formalizes common sense. I think we commonly want sex, crime and alcoholism skipped on middle school tests. Someone said so. OK ...

P.S. totally fine with standardized tests, I want to know quantitatively where my kids stand, what areas I can supplement best at home, and where a gap might be lurking. Some people test well, some don't. It's not a perfect metric. OK, but I find value in it anyway. Also, to the extent that I can help teach my kids how to stay calm and perform under pressure, prioritize their time, block out distractions - tests are decently good practice there, and I use those skills all the time as an adult.

 

[AC7179]

The idea is to test every child fairly.

If there's a reading passage about cancer, there will be a number of children who had recently lost parents to cancer taking the test reading that passage. The topic could upset them and distract them, causing them not to be able to test to the best of their ability. Same with terrorism and abuse.


Too much tv? Maybe the idea there is that kids who watch more tv would have background knowledge over certain shows, etc. Not sure.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I thought education was about learning and not about censoring.

Wherever did you get that idea? The purpose of public education is to create Americans . . . that involves all kinds of propaganda and censorship.

 

[minnie mum]

By all means, lets hamstring our teachers even more. A word springs to mind. Unfortunately it's probably on the list, so I can't say it here.

 

[Aliceacc]

By all means, lets hamstring our teachers even more. A word springs to mind. Unfortunately it's probably on the list, so I can't say it here.

How does this hamstring my teaching???